Looks like May is signalling Soft-Brexit. Whatever that means.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Which absolutely no-one in this thread has done.
Good post.
I've heard of this before. Very sad.
They have a lucrative street market business which translate in 14 hours a day work 6 days a week. Their business is quite lucrative and the old man invested wisely in numerous properties that they rent. His two children has been working in the business since they were kids and at age 18 the boy already looked like an old man. No wonder why he wanted out. When he asked his dad to helped him up to continue his studies he refused to pay 1 single penny in his education as the old man was growing old, family comes first and his daughter depended on it for a living. The boy was labelled as lazy and ungrateful and his father vowed not to pay a single penny for his education.
Rest assured that blue collared workers aren't the only people who has such mentality. I've know elitist (4-5 generation lawyers with firm and all) who kicked their children out of home for not choosing to become lawyers.
Last edited:
In my day kids from poorer/ordinary families like mine got a good grant to go to Uni, whereas those from wealthier families got less or nothing. Some of the kids from wealthier families were very well provided for, but the poorest students around were strangely those whose wealthier parents wouldn't give them anything, and they struggled.
In the UK today the son you mention would go to university though, they would take out a student loan to do so.
I don't know how it worked in the UK but in Malta everyone is entitled for free tertiary education and grants. And before someone snipe at 'ah taxhaven/EU money' jab, rest assured that this thing had been going on for more then 3 decades ie long before Malta entered in the EU and just after the UK left Malta with the George Cross and little else.
I think its ridiculous to expect young adults to go into debts for wanting to become better taxpayers. Also you can't assume that rich parents are going to help their children. Most do and I've seen people going to Uni with BMWs which is frigging ridiculous if you ask me. But there's a substantial lot who wont. The reasons vary from parents not liking the children's choice of education right to parents being separated and new wifey doesn't like that her husband spend £££ on children that aren't hers. Parents can be cnuts and you wont find many saints around who became rich.
I am aware that countries need to balance the books. However if a government want to tax someone then tax the rich instead. Its ridiculous to tax somebody who wants to become a better taxpayer. A highly educated person will provide the country with nearly half a century taxes to say the least. If given a chance, he will have children who would probably raise them in the same way he was brought up.
There again, we all know that the Tory Party is made up of old people who are there to appease their peers. No wonder why the UK vote on a weekday which is frigging outrageous if you ask me as its a big middle finger towards all those who bother working. Also I noted that the elderly generation in the UK just love to make sure that the younger generation wont enjoy the same benefits they had enjoyed. Its for their own good of course.
Last edited:
Why should the poor pay for the education of the middle and upper classes, when said education results in those people getting richer? Unless education up until 21 becomes mandatory then there is absolutely no coherent argument for prioritising spending on richer people over poorer people.
There is no data to suggest that tuition fee's in their current manifestation put people off going to University. In fact the numbers of people attending University from all backgrounds has risen more significantly since Tony Blair introduced tuition fee's than ever before.
Anyone educated enough to want to attend University is also educated enough to realise that paying a little more tax once you're earning more money than you otherwise would have is both progressive and fair. Anyone who believes it to be "debt" in any normal sense of the word, rather than just a graduate tax has been a victim of scaremongering.
Again - the poor don't tend to go to University; so making them pay for the education of predominantly the middle and upper classes is one of the most selfish and regressive policies imaginable.
Regardless of a countries economic situation if they decide to give a tax break to predominantly upper and middle class families at the expense of the poor then it is pretty awful. Your mantra of "a guy could live on benefits..." could be applied to all income taxes. Why should we tax people who earn £50k a year when they're doing society a favour by not being on benefits?
No-one is asking a young adult to rely on anyone but himself. If he wants to go to University the Government currently pay for him to go. They then tax him a little more once he's earning more as a result of his greater education. The vast majority of people who go on to earn greater salaries as a result of their Government funded education are expected to pay a little more back into the system. If their education doesn't lead to them earning a decent salary, it's free.
Again anyone calling this "debt" doesn't understand the current situation with regards to University fee's. Debt doesn't just disappear if you aren't earning enough to comfortably and proportionally pay it off. It's a tax on people who're earning greater salaries as a result of the free education the Government has provided.
Anyone who doesn't go to University because of the tuition fee's needs to be educated about fairness in society and how if you receive a great free education which results in you earning a greater salary later in life, you should be happy to pay a little extra into the system to allow others the same opportunities.
Kids aren't political pawns to be tagged at birth as rich or poor. Everyone has a right to an advanced education, and I'm sick of people inserting this divisive language into education.
Correlation does not imply causation. We've been moving relentlessly towards a service driven economy, and along with the rise of the internet allowing people to discover the opportunties available to them the reasons for increased university attendance are many.
Sure, Project Fear and all that. Just like when the government sold off some older student loans to private companies, and as Martin Lewis put it..
Martin Lewis said:
But hey, it's not REAL debt right..
They do, its called increased tax payments on earnings. The country benefits massively from higher taxpayers (and trained doctors, engineers, scientists etc) so I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone trying to claim students should pay for it all themselves.
You do really come across as a bit ungrateful, you know.
You could live anywhere in the EU, but presumably you chose to live in the UK - please don't come on here moaning about everything that's wrong with the UK and how poorly the UK treats you, etc....
I'm old enough to remember that the UK had a very special relationship with Malta, even after independence, and Maltese will always be welcome there. But if you've decided that the UK has too many faults with its society or how it is organised or runs itself, then you could always try one of the other 26 countries if you don't want to go back to Malta.
Sorry to be so blunt - but you're ammunition for those xenophobes in the UK who voted LEAVE purely on the basis of reducing immigration numbers.
As for your comments about ' the elderly generation in the UK just love to make sure that the younger generation wont enjoy the same benefits they had enjoyed ' is nonsense. I will admit that I was lucky to be born when I was and where I was, but by that I mean not a hundred years ago, and not in some God forsaken, broken country in Africa. But to say that my generation are deliberately trying to make sure it is worse for your generation is absolute bollocks.
You really do need to wind it in a bit.
So in few words, the Tories are overtaxing young adults who dared getting a tertiary education simply because they love the poor? I never seen it that way. Here's an alternative. Instead of overtaxing those who happen to be unfortunate enough not to have parents to pay their bills why not increase the tax bands and the property tax? In that way, whoever earns more or have more property will be paying more! Poor people will not be hurt either way! But of course the Tory party will never do that. Else those who can easily vote on a thursday will not be voting for them.
In my opinion education is a RIGHT and by distinguishing between poor and rich on that regard will cause a divide with the rich evading tax rather then allowing others to see him as a cashcow and the poor suffering because of it. A smart government will provide free tertiary education to everybody and then recoup the money from those who afford paying.
Erm, read again what I've written. Im criticising the Tory party not the UK. If the Tory Party and their values represent all UK citizens then I geniunely apologise.
And don't worry me soon enough I'll move. For some strange reason my country is over the moon in me paying all my taxes there.
Will they broadcast your returning day parade?
It will be like Donald Trump coming to the UK
@devilish Please continue to say anything the hell you please about the UK. The idea that you should be a happy, grateful little immigrant, or just shut your mouth is despicable and goes against everything modern Britain is supposed to stand for.
I don't mind writing all the faults of my country if @Full bodied red want to. However that's out of topic isn't it?
Also note I was criticising the Tory Party which I admit I am not particularly fond off. I am sure that most British people share my same line of thought on that regard
The Tory party represent only 40% of people in the UK. The rest are really quite normal.
And you think that those 40% share all Tory values?
Anyone who comes here is allowed to have an opinion/moan etc, the UK should also be grateful they are here contributing to society, paying taxes etc
The statistics show that people from poorer households go to University at a much lower rate. To ignore this fact as it's an uncomfortable reality is not only naive but is also dangerous.
Correlation does not imply causation. However I've seen no evidence that people from poorer backgrounds are put off by the current graduate tax system. In fact quite the opposite - the anecdotal evidence I've seen suggests that people would like to be earning far more than £21,000 to have to pay a good proportion of their student loan back!
Again it's like the 45% income tax rate in this sense. No-one wants to pay 45% of their income to the state, but most people on lower salaries would love to be paying it as it would mean they're earning much more than they are.
It isn't real debt. Any administrative errors that caused distress to people is unfortunate of course. However to design a regressive tax policy around a few distressing errors would again be the height of reactionary.
Earning enough to pay for your own higher education, which allows the next generation to go to University should be something that makes people proud. Certainly more proud than forcing a higher percentage of poor people who don't go to University to pay for the education of the richer people in society.
The Tories are trying to find money to pay for Public services and have stumbled upon a very progressive way of doing this.
If you've read any of my previous posts I am aware that we're already taxing the richest in society as much as we possibly can. This is because they provide the most money whilst offending the least amount of people. Therefore every party in Government tries to tax this income group as much as possible. This isn't to do with left, centre or right politics. This is to do with wanting power - which is every parties desire. Any party who can bribe the bottom 95% of earners with freebie's paid for by the top 5% is going to do this as they'd win an election a huge majority. Read the IFS report into the Labour manifesto to see the cynicism of tax receipt increasing byr making arbitrary changes to corporation tax or £80k+ income tax levels.
The Tories have gotten the top 10% paying more tax in numeric terms and more tax as a % of their income than ever before. Likewise in terms of money after tax over the past ten years the bottom 25% of earners have had a greater increase in terms of % of salary than the top 25%.
But lets say for one second that there is a magical way of getting rich people to pay more and lets assume they won't change their behaviors to avoid paying more. Who do you think will end up paying for the decrease in their salaries as a result? Everyone else. If they're paying more in corporation tax and income on dividends they'll increase the price of their goods to redress the balance. So a manufacturer of bread might put an extra 10p on a loaf to claw this back. Poorer people are naturally hit hardest as 10p on all their essentials to them is far more damaging than 10p on richer people.
I agree that education is a right. This is why students don't have to apply to a Bank and get any loans secured against either their assets or their parents; like any actual loan. A graduate tax is the most progressive way of making the higher earners pay a little more in tax, whilst the poorer people who don't go to University aren't subsidising the richer ones who are.
Any policy irrespective of good intent that has the blatant byproduct of the poor paying to make the rich, richer is a ridiculous one.
Says the person who criticises the EU but chooses to live in a country that is one of the founder members of said community.
Free speech has not been banned in the UK ... yet
It used to be much worse. At the age of 11 your life was more or less decided for you if you were working class. Going to university was about as natural a part of your life plan as going to the moon. That's why providing all people with the possibilty of higher education is essential, we mustn't go back to those days.
I don't think anyone should be grateful to anybody tbh. I dont need the UK to make money, in matter of fact I would be earning more money if I was in Malta. The UK on the other hand can easily live without me and Im doing it no favours by staying there.
@Full bodied red I don't think Im treated badly by the British. Quite contrary I am here because of the way the British society work (its not as clingy or as intrusive in other people's personel affair as a typical Southern European society is). There again, democracy work were people can say whatever they like without being insulted back or bullied to silence. Both our ancestors fought nazism/fascist regimes. Lets not repeat those regimes mistakes.
No....Absolutely not.
Just like the majority of the electorate in most countries, most people tend to vote against something rather than for something.
Like I said last week, I would have voted Tory for the first time in life - because I would have been voting against leaving the BREXIT negotiations to a combination of Labour / LibDem politicos whose heart isn't in BREXIT, and would have reopened the door for UKIP and even worse.
True. It was Labour reforms in the 60s that improved educational chances for ordinary folk. I watched it live.
Let me share a story about my country which my old man told me. Back in the day, Malta was poor, really poor. People were leaving to Australia like rats on a sinking ship and most Malta's government policies were centered around emigration. A new government came out and out of the blues he decided to push for pensions for everybody. Everyone went ballistic. The business class were at arms, the nationalist party (ie our version of the Tory Party) was at arms, even the friggin church were at arms, claiming that its the children's responsibility to take care of their parents and that the elderly people would spend it in alcohol. Everyone was potraying a doom and gloom scenario were Malta will suddenly become so uncompetitive that everyone will starve etc. Guess what? the reform passed and the country not only survived but thrived from it. The reason being that thanks to it wives had more freedom to focus on their children instead. That translated with more children going to school which meant a more educated workforce. Thanks to that Malta could attract better business which lead to people being paid better.These days no PNist or clergy dares mentioning that anymore.
Few decades later (ie about 4 years ago) the same party did the same with free child care for families with both parents working . The same reaction occured all over again. The opposition party went ballistic by saying that Malta would need a bailout in few years time. Not only we didn't need a bailout but we're starting making a surplus. Do you know why? The majority of our graduates are women. By offering free child care to those who needed it, the government allowed these women to keep on working. That was translated in more taxes which in return brought more euros in our coffers. Also professionals of my same age group and who immigrated elsewhere are returning home because they are better off there. These people are bringing skills (and paying taxes) that the country need.
I am not suggesting a free for all here. However sometimes, its worth giving something to get something bigger in return. Also note that when someone feel that he benefitted from taxes paid and he's not a mere cash cow then he's less likely to evade tax.
So don't you agree that the people Im criticising is a tiny friction of the UK population ie the elderly people who share all Tory values?
As you said in an earlier post the old grants system helped a lot of people get a university education. 1960s UK set the ball rolling in many areas, only for Thatcherism to try to return things to the past. Poor woman, she wanted to create a society of people like her father and created one for people like her son
Hey....You know I've been here since 1979 - long before the EU existed....
The bit about Free Speech - yes, I was a bit harsh, I suppose, and apologies to you, Dev, if you feel I'm being too personal.
They'll be richer and pay more taxes, this in turn will help support the poor
I'm not sure that reply has any real relevance here? People are already going to University at record levels, with possibly too many people in comparison to the amount of jobs that require a degree. The Government pays for those people to go to University, but is asking for a bit extra back once they're earning a good salary. The often poorer people who don't go to University to such a large proportion aren't currently paying for the often richer ones who do. It's an exceptionally equitable situation.
If you decide to spend money on one policy, you are actively deciding to not spend it on another policy. Spending tens of billions per Parliament on "free" University education means you're not spending it on the people who really need it - the most vulnerable.
Obviously in a perfect world everything would be free of charge; but the reality we live in is that this isn't feasible, so in my view we prioritise the policies that help the poor more than the wealthy. Paying for University is the polar opposite to this and anyone with a degree of sense realises it's a hard-right policy to tax the poor and give to the rich.
Who will be richer? The rich or the poor? If the former then they will go to University irrespective of tuition fee's and so will be richer regardless. If the latter there is no evidence that a reduction in tuition fee's has any positive correlation with poorer people going to university. Therefore no-one "will be richer" as a result of the abolition of tuition fee's.
Essentially from a statistical point of view tuition fee's aren't stopping people from going to University and they are an effective means of taxing the wealthiest in the Country, whilst protecting the poorest.
People with a degree of sense would know that taxing everyone on the principle that some of them will be well off is about as far from 'progressive' as you can get. Not to mention its basically a double tax considering the higher rates of tax they'll also pay after graduation.
If you support it then good for you, but spare us the 'you must be stupid if you don't agree with me' crap. Especially when you've already admitted that correlation does not imply causation, yet you keep repeating the idea that it does anyway.
What happens if you get the student loan but don't finish your degree?
By paying for free tertiary education the government is encouraging people to better themselves, which will, in turn, make them better taxpayers. It also enforce the idea that the UK is the country to be to raise a family in and that paying taxes is for the benefit of everybody not only the 'poor' person who sit all day long at the pub. The UK like Malta can't afford competing with other countries in terms of salary (ex Australia for doctors). However it can compete in other ways ie by setting friendly friendly procedures. Do you know how many UK professionals has moved to Australia in recent years? How much tax would they have paid if they chose to pay taxes in the UK? If they decide to raise their family there whom do you think will benefit from having kids raised in a typical middle class way, were children are thought to focus on their studies and work hard?
Don't you think that this sort of policy is better off then financing the Trident, bombing Libya or giving aids to a country who has its own space programme?
Last edited:
you still have to pay it
Too much of a generalisation....
You don't have to be rich and/or old to be a Tory any more than you have to be poor and/or young to be a Socialist.
There are probably just as many Tory voters on council estates in the UK as there are Champagne Socialists. No idea why, although I can sort of understand how people become Champagne Socialists because I probably fit into that category myself these days.
And my children and the people I buy my car insurance from class me as 'elderly' but I don't share many Tory values. Some of them, yes, because I can see how they have helped me in my life, but not many. In my impressionable early 20s, when I was living with my parents on a scruffy council estate, I was a Union Branch Secretary of ASTMS ( anyone here old enough to remember them - Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff ) and I was surrounded by 30 / 40 / 50 year old professional people, who although they were members of a Trade Union were not Labour voters, but who I looked at, saw they were far better off than me both financially and professionally, and that helped shape my life.
Equally, my Mother is now almost 90 years old and was a local Labour Councillor in Cheshire for almost 50 years until just three years ago. As the phrase goes, even today if she saw a Tory with his clothes on fire she wouldn't even piss on him to put the fire out.
So no....I can't believe that both myself and my mother are unique. Maybe, but I doubt it.
Its the party that target well off elderly people just as most conservative parties do. What, in my opinion, find different between Malta and the UK is that there's a big chunk of the Tory party voters who dont give a feck about the younger generation. Malta is nowhere near as rich as the UK is but the younger generation are way better off then their equivalent in the UK.
Last edited:
So people who drop out of a degree due to, say, mental health issues are then saddled with a load of debt without the benefit of a "better" job to help them pay for it?
If there's a link between poverty and that sort of mental illness (or indeed any other factor that makes kids from poorer backgrounds more likely to drop out of college) then they're essentially forced to take a greater risk with their future than kids from wealthier backgrounds? Hardly seems like a great idea given how many people do drop out of college.
I can't answer to that.